Going back to felons and guns, there's an interesting carve out in Texas (and some other states I understand). After five years from discharge of the sentence, a felon can possess a firearm in their residence. Lot of issues, possess versus own, purchase, residence only, etc, but it's interesting.

Scott B. wrote:Going back to felons and guns, there's an interesting carve out in Texas (and some other states I understand). After five years from discharge of the sentence, a felon can possess a firearm in their residence. Lot of issues, possess versus own, purchase, residence only, etc, but it's interesting.

That is true and interesting but that means the state will not charge you but the feds can if the ever have a reason to search the residence. Then again, if you are doing something that makes the feds search your residence, you probably should not have a firearm.

Texas LTC Instructor, NRA pistol instructor, RSO, NRA Endowment Life , TSRA, Glock enthusiast (tho I have others)Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to add it to a fruit salad.

You will never know another me, this could be good or not so good, but it is still true.

theHunter wrote:Several people advocating for someone who commits a crime to not serve their punishment, to me, that means that you are ok with that crime if you don't want them to be punished.

So you know and trust that a government can't become tyrannical? Does it never abuse powers such as targeting conservative groups with the IRS?

Please quote where someone advocated to not have crimes punished? The debate/discussion here is at what point has the State stepped beyond the scope of its power?

I am personally surprised at the number of people ok with the government being able to permanently strip you of a God-given right. That's not to say they shouldn't have the ability to suspend or suppress a right for a limited amount of time for severe enough crimes. I mean, while we're at it, lets strip felon's right to freedom of speech/first amendment rights. Do they need 4th and 5th amendment, nah they're felons, they don't deserve those either. Why not brand them or tattoo them with a bar code and make them second-class citizens? Am I being ridiculous, yes - but its to prove a point. At what point does this slippery slope end?

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson

theHunter wrote:Several people advocating for someone who commits a crime to not serve their punishment, to me, that means that you are ok with that crime if you don't want them to be punished.

Now that's a stretch and that's putting it most politely. Loss of constitutional rights is not part of a felon's sentencing. It's the result of being classified a felon. If it was part of sentencing, then the judge or jury would have the ability to impact whether or not a convicted felon loses his/her constitutional rights.

What if any constitutional rights are lost as a result of a felony conviction is a legitimate topic of discussion and one concerning which reasonable minds can differ. Violent v. non-violent offenses, mitigating circumstances, how old is the conviction and what has the defendant done since the conviction, etc. are all factors that I feel an administrative panel and ultimately a state jury should be able to weigh in terms of restoration of civil rights.

To me it is the law and it is as simple as that, I have always been taught that if you don't think a law is fair then work to change it. This law has been in effect since 1968 through many changes in government and has yet to be changed. Now I am only 51 years old but I have known my whole adult life that if I was ever convicted of a felony I would lose several of my constitutional rights. To me the punishment is the only deterrent to most of these people committing crimes.

You can slice it and dice it any way you want, if you don't want to enforce the laws that are the law of the land then you are ok with felony crimes being committed. The Supreme Court has allowed for the felon to petition the convicting state as long as it is not a federal felony to have these rights restored. This is the remedy for your reasoning Charles. Otherwise it is black and white to me you do the crime you do the time, which for felons includes not only loss of gun rights, loss of voting rights and in many cases the ability to visit many forgein countries.

I might not be as highly educated as many of you on here, and you can call me naive but I actually believe that the judicial system works most of the time . This being said, I think this is a healthy discussion and I do believe that the, what I consider, excessive crime in this country today is the result of so many people thinking "oh I am only going to get a slap on the wrist and they won't make me serve all that time and no way they will really punish me with all those lose of rights."

Yes I know people change but it is up to them to prove it to the state and if that cost them some money then so be it.

theHunter wrote:To me it is the law and it is as simple as that, I have always been taught that if you don't think a law is fair then work to change it. This law has been in effect since 1968 through many changes in government and has yet to be changed.

You think that the law is fair and want to keep it the way it is, and that is OK.

Many people believe that they law is unfair and maybe even unconstitutional and many people ARE in fact working to change it by supporting organizations like the NRA the TSRA and maybe even GOA, and by voting for officials who are strong on the RKBA.

Your argument that if people disagree with the current law then those people are condoning criminal behavior is inherently false. In fact I honestly doubt that most of the people on this forum would support lighter penalties for felony violations, however those same people believe strongly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Most people on this forum also likely believe in redemption, and that God can change a person's heart and that people can change their ways.

The world we live in is not black and white, and I think that the laws should be designed with some consideration for the grey areas.

LTC since 2015I have contacted my state rep Dennis Paul about co-sponsoring HB560.

bayou wrote:What does 30.06 have to do with the discussion about felonies? If you differ in opinion with the felons not having access to guns that's ok but don't hijack the thread with a trolling comment.

Point is the same guys that want to beat the law by not doing the time are no different than those that beat the 30.06. Same mentality. If you don't want the punishment, don't do the crime. If you don't want to disarm, don't frequent the establishment. Pretty simple.

Ok so I'll take the bait. It's apples to oranges. The law is very specific in what the sign has to appear as. If a sign does not meet those specified requirements then it does not carry the weight of the law. It is not getting around the law in anyway. It may be getting around the owners intentions. Personally I do not give any money to someone who posts any sort of 30.06 signs but I do not fault or judge anyone who walks by a non compliant sign. Just because the business owner decided to put up a non compliant sign doesn't me someone is trying to beat a law